Feinsteins Gun Control Bill

[trvlr]

Several pro gun arguments just don't add up.

- every teacher getting a CCW (not enough money/interest)
- make guns more available (not enough money/interest)
- more cops at school (not enough money)
- developed countries with ->enforced<- tough gun laws have high rates of gun violence
(Using any region in the UK or any other high population developed country)

I really want to keep all of my weapon systems, however, can we really make the argument that tough gun laws will have 0 effect on these types of crimes? I don't think so.

IMO, a better argument would be that the amount of money/heartache associated with very tough gun laws would not be worth the predicted drop in these types of crimes. Now if someone could predict roughly what that drop would be...

[koz]

Two other things-

Why is no one talking about the video games that this (and many other shooters) are addicted to? Kids are being indoctrinated that killing is easy and there is no consequence.

Also why does the Gov't give tax credits for energy efficient windows, doors, A/C, etc... but gives nothing to secure your firearms. If they truly cared about children, they would give a tax credit for people to secure their guns.

[Ape Man]

1. Mental health in this country is more messed up than many of you can imagine.

To give you just one example, pedophiles are frequently locked up in mental health hospitals if they are deemed at risk of offending again. In New York, recent ward closures has lead facilities to look into releasing these creatures into outpatient treatment programs as that is where the state wants mental health treatment to go. I have been told by clinical people that pedophiles being treated in outpatient treatment programs are not subject to most of the notification and exclusion rules governing pedophiles. This came up because an objection was raised on the ground that many of our outpatient treatment programs are near areas with lots of children.

2. Most Americans don't pay much attention to world news and so don't understand that these thing happen even with very restrictive gun laws.

Of the top 5 gun massacres committed by one person, only one happened in the United States. All the countries had stricter gun laws then the US. One of the worst massacres was carried out by a man with a .32 revolver. Countries like China that have almost no guns at all don't have large scale gun massacres. But that does not mean they don't have problems with people attacking kids in school. The main difference is that people use knives instead.

3. For some reason, the gun control crowd exempts itself from having to be rational and yet they demand that the pro-gun crowd be fact based and rational.

I can understand people who think if we had the level of gun ownership that Japan has that we would be a safer place. But I can't understand people who think that 10 rounds in an AR style rifle is so much safer than 20 rounds in an AR style rifle. I can't understand people who think that a pump action shotgun is so much safer than a semi-automatc shotgun. Round count may make a difference when trying to suppress an armed opponent. But I fail to see how having to reload a couple of more times makes much of a difference when you are killing little kids. I tried to point that out to someone today but all I got in response is "tell me one good reason someone needs a 20 rounds in gun?" So they need a good reason to have one but you don't need a good reason to take it away?

[DDD]

The other problem that no one has talked about is "Non Competitive Soccer". That is not in pink and my point is they were raised by a society where they were always winners (trophys for everyone) and never learned how to lose. When life gets hard, they don't have the skills to deal with it because they've always been "winners".
Of course this is MOO and I could very well be wrong.

[abc_123]

Originally Posted by DDD

The other problem that no one has talked about is "Non Competitive Soccer". That is not in pink and my point is they were raised by a society where they were always winners (trophys for everyone) and never learned how to lose. When life gets hard, they don't have the skills to deal with it because they've always been "winners".
Of course this is MOO and I could very well be wrong.

I went down that very same "soccer" road in this thread a while back, however you did specify "non-competitive" where I did not.

http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/...ad.php?t=21934

...it caused a bit of discussion.

[trvlr]

Originally Posted by Brush Okie

Conn has very strict gun control laws. Assault weapons are illegal. Having a gun in your vehicle even if yours and legal is illegal except under very strict circumstances. Also murdering children is illegal. Didn't stop the idiot. Look no further than Mexico and look at the gun violence there where firearms are illegal yet the criminals have select fire AK-47's M-16's and RPG's. Criminals don't follow the laws that is why we call them criminals. They don't care what is illegal they do it anyway. Making more will not stop them. What about the guy in China that used a knife on 22 school children. Think it through. BTW there are more homicides non firearm related than with firearms every year according to the FBI.

You left out the part where I said "->enforced<-" Mexico does not have the crime prevention/law enforcement success rate of a developed nation right now.

The China incident resulted in 0 deaths.

In this case, the idiot's mother (who I'll assume was a law abiding citizen since she purchased her guns legally) would not have had the weapons for him to steal from her. Could he have found another way? Almost certainly, but my point is, saying it would have no affect on mass shootings doesn't make any sense.

I'll reiterate that I want to keep all of my weapon systems. That being said, some of the arguments we make don't make sense.

[dollarbill]

http://www.americaspartynews.com/tal...w.asp?tid=3621
DARRELL SCOTT'S SPEECH TO CONGRESS?

[ThinAir]

Originally Posted by trvlr

Several pro gun arguments just don't add up.

- every teacher getting a CCW (not enough money/interest)
- make guns more available (not enough money/interest)
- more cops at school (not enough money)
- developed countries with ->enforced<- tough gun laws have high rates of gun violence
(Using any region in the UK or any other high population developed country)

I really want to keep all of my weapon systems, however, can we really make the argument that tough gun laws will have 0 effect on these types of crimes? I don't think so.

IMO, a better argument would be that the amount of money/heartache associated with very tough gun laws would not be worth the predicted drop in these types of crimes. Now if someone could predict roughly what that drop would be...

Your last point, regarding developed countries: How about OVERALL rates of violence?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...frica-U-S.html

The UK is sucking when it comes to violent crime. Apologists for the UK GOV will make all the excuses they want, but the data is still the same. I could certainly argue that control would have zero effect on overall levels of violent crime. What effect did the previous AWB have on gun violence? If the Anti-2A logic is to be taken at face value, then Chicago and NYC should be a safety utopia, yet the opposite is true. Why? Are the laws not enforced well enough?

Finally, do you believe that 2A is for hunting purposes?

[trvlr]

Originally Posted by ThinAir

Your last point, regarding developed countries: How about OVERALL rates of violence?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...frica-U-S.html

The UK is sucking when it comes to violent crime. Apologists for the UK GOV will make all the excuses they want, but the data is still the same. I could certainly argue that control would have zero effect on overall levels of violent crime. What effect did the previous AWB have on gun violence? If the Anti-2A logic is to be taken at face value, then Chicago and NYC should be a safety utopia, yet the opposite is true. Why? Are the laws not enforced well enough?

Finally, do you believe that 2A is for hunting purposes?

I don't know how it would affect overall levels of violent crime. In the UK most people switched to knives. If that happened here, then I'm guessing the number of mass killings with semi automatic weapons would decrease.

I do not believe government gun purchasing/confiscation is a high priority in the NY or Chicago areas. Most of the LEOs are IMO busy trying to stay in front of the high priority crimes.

That being said, many of these mass shooters have used guns that were purchased legally by themselves or someone they knew. They aren't going to high crime areas to buy the throwaways that are used there. This lends credence to the thought process that extremely tough gun control laws would lead to less of these mass killings.

I believe the 2nd amendment was written to keep an armed and free populous in the US. I think they were right with banning the M2 for civilian use, but I fear that the planned end state for some of these politicians is an America where all guns but flintlocks are outlawed. Today it's bushmaster, tomorrow it's glock because "any semi-auto can be used to help a mass shooter."

I don't think any new legislation will stop enough of these shootings to warrant me losing my weapons, but I do think it would have some effect.

[Badger52]

Originally Posted by trvlr

IMO, a better argument would be that the amount of money/heartache associated with very tough gun laws would not be worth the predicted drop in these types of crimes. Now if someone could predict roughly what that drop would be...

Toward the end of the last AWB the Clinton admin had lots of studies done; MOO they wanted to prove the shining efficacy of their actions, which didn't quite work out. Here's one, which looks to be a study of the studies.
It appears to me as if the CDC didn't find that - after 6 to 8 YEARS - of the AWB they were willing to find anything conclusive, other than flawed studies. A couple of extracts from the table at the bottom past the footnotes (apologies Sigaba, end notes ) caught my eye:

Intervention: Bans on specified firearms or ammunition.
Task force finding: Insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness.
Intervention description: Prohibit acquisition or possession of certain categories of firearms (e.g., machine guns or assault weapons) or ammunition (e.g., large-capacity magazines). Can also include prohibitions on the manufacture of the specified firearms. Often "grandfather" guns acquired before the ban.
Key findings: Evidence insufficient because of small numbers of studies, inconsistent evidence of effectiveness, and limitations in execution of available studies. Studies of Washington, D.C. handgun ban produced conflicting results that could not be resolved. Bans may lead to pre-ban increases in sales of firearms to be banned. (my Captain of the Obvious award)

Intervention: Zero tolerance laws for firearms in schools.
Task force finding: Insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness.
Intervention description: Require that participating schools expel for at least 1 year students found carrying a gun in school. Local modifications possible for individual students.
Key findings: Evidence insufficient because of absence of relevant studies; no studies evaluated violent outcomes of zero-tolerance laws. Possible violent and other harmful consequences of expulsion.

Here's another hit from the archives. Done for the DoJ, by all means enjoy the Summary findings for each section.

Should we not assume the best motives of these academic efforts? Are their reports to be believed? Is it immeasurable, or did no one in the administration that fostered such a ban really actually give a shit whether it accomplished anything down the road or not? Especially taking the last reference done for the DoJ, does anyone think that - 10 years being insufficient to arrive at real conclusions - that any policy maker or even someone of the purist motive is willing to wait 20 years to see if something works?

To an AWB specifically: Same circus, newer mix of clowns.

[Streck-Fu]

Originally Posted by koz

Two other things-

Why is no one talking about the video games that this (and many other shooters) are addicted to? Kids are being indoctrinated that killing is easy and there is no consequence.

It does get discussed but I don't think it holds much water. There are millions of kids and young adults that play video games and do not go on shooting rampages.
The more common element of several more recent shooters has been some sort of psychological condition. The Colorado shooter was seeing a college therapist whom thought him dangerous.
The Virginia Tech shooter had seen a therapist for some sort issue not defined in the media.
Laughner in Arizona had known issues.

Most of the people doing these shooting may have played games, but they all had psychological or developmental issues. For the games to be a more primary cause, there would have to be cases of game players with no history of other issues rushing out and shooting people.

That isn't happening.

Also why does the Gov't give tax credits for energy efficient windows, doors, A/C, etc... but gives nothing to secure your firearms. If they truly cared about children, they would give a tax credit for people to secure their guns.

Not a bad idea at all. I'm not really a fan of tax credits ( I just want a much smaller government requiring far fewer taxes) but I can support most plans that allow people to keep more of their money.

[Paslode]

That being said, many of these mass shooters have used guns that were purchased legally by themselves or someone they knew. They aren't going to high crime areas to buy the throwaways that are used there. This lends credence to the thought process that extremely tough gun control laws would lead to less of these mass killings.

Or maybe extremely tough gun laws will lead to a change in the methods for mass killings.

In 1927 a school administrator killed 37 elementary school children with explosives. In 1990 Julio Gonazalez used a gallon of gasoline and killed 87 people. David “Son of Sam” Berkowitz was also an arsonist who had a log of starting over 1400 fires. The 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Alabama bombing killed 4 children. Charlie Manson......


How about a suicide vest...


Evil will continue to raise it's ugly head with or without more gun laws.


I had a person, a none gun owner tell me this week that no one, except for the LE and the Military needs to have hi-cap mags or automatic guns. People should only have guns to hunt with and the Government needs to do something about it.

On the other hand this person is up in arms that the her Government is going to penalize them because they make too much money. They are up in arms about ramming Obama Care down our throats and they are up in arms about Obama forcing Catholics to accept abortion....and the Government has no right to do that. I pay my fair share, I should be able to practice my religion as I want, I should not have abortion forced on me, I shouldn't have to pay healthcare for others and I shouldn't be penalized for being successful.


In either case, I find it is little more than a divisive tactic that demonizes a segment of society to achieve a political agenda.....and it doesn't come close in getting to the root of the problem.

[MR2]

Prohibition Never Works

[trvlr]

Originally Posted by Badger52

Should we not assume the best motives of these academic efforts? Are their reports to be believed? Is it immeasurable, or did no one in the administration that fostered such a ban really actually give a shit whether it accomplished anything down the road or not? Especially taking the last reference done for the DoJ, does anyone think that - 10 years being insufficient to arrive at real conclusions - that any policy maker or even someone of the purist motive is willing to wait 20 years to see if something works?

To an AWB specifically: Same circus, newer mix of clowns.

The heavy reading you linked supports everything you said. Which is interesting seeing as they'll be trying to push for a more stringent law without their own studies supporting a major benefit coming from the new law.

Many of our citizens are afraid though, and they definitely want to see something done no matter how miniscule the positive result may be.

[Badger52]

Originally Posted by trvlr

Many of our citizens are afraid though, and they definitely want to see something done no matter how miniscule the positive result may be.

Quite true. They want to see something done (by someone else), not understanding that taking personal action is a choice also available to them. One is more liberating than the other.

So long as their state of reality is defined by the slothful 8 seconds in a day they devote to information gathering, sourced by whatever channel the TV was left on when it was turned off, it'll happen again, they'll wring their hands again, etc.

Wait till EO guidance to ATF making grandfathered items not covered in Feinstein-II into NFA items comes along...